green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 ·
…a federal court may reverse an ins denial of a preferential visa petition only if the ins abused its discretion.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Mellon Bank, N.A. And Robert B. Reed, Jr., Executors of the Estate of A. Leon Davis A/K/A Austin L. Davis, Deceased v. United States
(2×)
But see First National Bank v. United States, 681 F.2d 534, 540-41 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 952 (1983).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Foster v. State
(2×)
But see, e.g., United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, U.S., 103 S.Ct. 726 (1983) (confession hearsay); Lipinski v. New York, 557 F.2d 289, 294 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1074 , 98 S.Ct. 1262 (1978) (prior inconsistent statement voucher); United States v. Brandenfels, 522 F.2d 1259, 1264 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1033 , 96 S.Ct. 564 (1975) (confession hearsay); Maness v. Wainwright, 512 F.2d 88, 91-92 (5th Cir.1975), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 550 , 97 S.Ct. 1593 (1977) (exculpatory statement voucher); Quigg v. Crist, 466 F.…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. Li-Hui Chang, and Chung-Chuan Sun Jerry Chien-Hua Raan Ping Fu Lu v. United States of America United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service
a federal court may reverse an ins denial of a preferential visa petition only if the ins abused its discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
a federal court may reverse an ins denial of a preferential visa petition only if the ins abused its discretion.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Lavon Bumpass
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nigel D. Ince
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 234 (4th Cir.1982) (citing and affirming United States v. MacDonald, 486 F.Supp. 1087, 1093-94 (E.D.N.C.1979)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); see also United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1193 (7th Cir.1984) (stating that the defendant may “argue that the probative value of the evidence offered to impeach the witness is clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact it might have on the jury, because the jury would have difficulty confining use of *581 the evidence to impeachment”) (citing Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Vunzell Bobo, Jr.
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (declarant’s long history of drug use made her an “inherently unreliable witness”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John P. McCoy United States of America v. Doyle David Moore, United States of America v. John P. McCoy United States of America v. Doyle David Moore, United States of America v. John P. McCoy
See United States v. McDonald, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 726 (1983). 28 Defendant McCoy contends that the court erred in refusing to permit him to attend the hearing on the motion for new trial based on the evidence.
cited
Cited "see"
Slade v. Taylor
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pryba
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir.1982) (“appraisal of the probative and prejudicial value of evidence under Rule 403 is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); see also United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 553-55 (9th Cir.1985) (district court enjoys wide discretion in performing Rule 403 weighing process).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mcvey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary Of State Of Illinois
See County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128-35 (2nd Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (Congress may create a cause of action against a state under its extradition powers.); Peel v. Florida, 600 F.2d 1070, 1074-82 (5th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the War Powers Clauses permitted); Mills Music v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the Copyright and Patent Clause permitted). 9 Despite the acceptance of our approach in Jennings, two recent Supreme Court cases may have called its holding into …
discussed
Cited "see"
McVey Trucking, Inc. v. Secretary of Illinois
See County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128-35 (2nd Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (Congress may create a cause of action against a state under its extradition powers.); Peel v. Florida, 600 F.2d 1070, 1074-82 (5th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the War Powers Clauses permitted); Mills Music v. Arizona, 591 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.1979) (cause of action created under the Copyright and Patent Clause permitted).
cited
Cited "see"
B.H. Papasan, Superintendent of Education v. United States of America
See County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1130-31 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Constantine T. Kepreos
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 227-28 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Margaret Elaine Wilkinson, A/K/A \Jane Doe\"
See United States v. McDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilkinson
See United States v. McDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983)..
discussed
Cited "see"
Ards v. State
See generally United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); United States v. Bagley, 537 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1075 , 97 S.Ct. 816 , 50 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Morton v. State
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Williams
See United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 233 (4th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard of review).
discussed
Cited "see"
North American Industries, Inc. v. Sam I. Feldman, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service
See, Mila. v. District Director of Denver, 678 F.2d 123 , 125 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 952 (1983); Kaliski v. District Director of INS, 620 F.2d 214 , 216 n. 1 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Schiappa
Ed. 2d 674 (1996) (hearsay exception for former testimony, which requires unavailability, permits admission of former testimony when physically available and competent witness becomes legally “unavailable” due to full or partial memory loss); Commonwealth v. Graves, 484 Pa. 29, 38 , 398 A.2d 644 (1979) (proper for court to admit former testimony where declarant has partial memory loss because “necessary testimony is admitted with the opponent being permitted to cross-examine the [declarant] both as to his asserted lack of memory as well as to his present testimony”); see also United St…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morehead Marine Services, Inc. v. Washnock
Petrs’ Br. at 28; see also Director, OWCP v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836, 840 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); Equitable Equip.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morehead Marine Services, Inc. v. Washnock
Petrs' Br. at 28; see also Director, OWCP v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836, 840 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983); Equitable Equip.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Health Care Plan, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
See California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287 , 101 S.Ct. 1775 , 68 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981); Reeves, 912 F.2d at 42 ; see also County of Monroe v. Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rufener
(2×)
See also United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 123 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Knox
See also *496 United States v. MacDonald, 688 F. 2d 224, 227-28 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 (1983) (“absent extraordinary circumstances” appellate court will not intervene where trial court appraises probative and prejudicial value of evidence under Rule 403).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Garroutte v. State
See also United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 232-33 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marine Management, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Compare, in another context (the Federal Extradition Act), the decision in County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1134 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, A/K/A the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, A/K/A the Oneida Indians of New York the Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin, A/K/A the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Inc. And the Oneida of the Thames Band Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. The County of Oneida, New York and the County of Madison, New York, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. State of New York, Third Party
The Court found that Congress had conditioned operation of a railroad on acceptance of potential FELA liability and any damage suits arising therefrom; by starting the railroad after the FELA had been enacted, Alabama had constructively consented to a waiver of its immunity. 377 U.S. at 192 , 84 S.Ct. at 1212 ; see also County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1133 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida
The Court found that Congress had conditioned operation of a railroad on acceptance of potential FELA liability and any damage suits arising therefrom; by starting the railroad after the FELA had been enacted, Alabama had constructively consented to a waiver of its immunity. 377 U.S. at 192 , 84 S.Ct. at 1212 ; see also County of Monroe v. State of Florida, 678 F.2d 1124, 1133 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 726 , 74 L.Ed.2d 951 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mila
v.
District Director of the Denver, Colorado, Immigration and Naturalization Service
v.
District Director of the Denver, Colorado, Immigration and Naturalization Service
No. 82-581.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 1983.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.